1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant D is a medical specialist outside of the F Hospital E in the original city, and the Defendant medical corporation B (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”) is an employer who employs Defendant D as a medical corporation operating a F Hospital. The Plaintiff is a person who received an spawn spawn spath from Defendant D in the F Hospital.

B. On October 27, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by Defendant D with a high blood-free visa on the right-hand right-hand side, and Defendant D performed an spawnization to the right-hand high-ranking mission against the Plaintiff.

Then, on December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by Defendant D as the left-hand high-tension visa, and Defendant D performed an spawnization to the left-hand high-level mission (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

C. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by Defendant D to have damaged the left-hand mission’s top-hand mission; Defendant D, on January 29, 2014, performed bling removal and crypting surgery performed against the Plaintiff at the time of the instant surgery.

On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on June 201 as a Tracker and was damaged by Defendant D’s left-hand mission.

On June 23, 2014, Defendant D provided for removal of foreign substances around the left-hand side to the Plaintiff.

E. Even after the Plaintiff continued to feel pain, the Plaintiff was diagnosed that the left-hand artificial insertion was destroyed by the G Hospital around March 2015.

On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff received artificial insertions removal from G Hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although Defendant D had a duty of care to properly fix and insert the human mission division in performing the instant surgery, Defendant D’s negligence inserted one side of the human mission division (the upper side of the instant surgery) and caused damage to the human mission division inserted into the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is therefore entitled.